Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Locally Advanced Mismatch Repair-Deficient Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors can be found in 10 to 15% of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. In these patients, the efficacy of chemotherapy is limited. The use of neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown promising results, but data from studies of this approach are limited. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 study in which patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced, previously untreated dMMR colon cancer were treated with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The two primary end points were safety, defined by timely surgery (i.e., ≤2-week delay of planned surgery owing to treatment-related toxic events), and 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary end points included pathological response and results of genomic analyses. RESULTS: Of 115 enrolled patients, 113 (98%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 100) underwent timely surgery; 2 patients had surgery delayed by more than 2 weeks. Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (4%), and none of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Among the 111 patients included in the efficacy analysis, a pathological response was observed in 109 (98%; 95% CI, 94 to 100), including 105 (95%) with a major pathological response (defined as ≤10% residual viable tumor) and 75 (68%) with a pathological complete response (0% residual viable tumor). With a median follow-up of 26 months (range, 9 to 65), no patients have had recurrence of disease. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced dMMR colon cancer, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab had an acceptable safety profile and led to a pathological response in a high proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; NICHE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03026140.).

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: 5-year results from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated promising clinical activity and durable responses in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the CheckMate 040 study at 30.7-month median follow-up. Here, we present 5-year results from this cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to arm A [nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)] or arm B [nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)], each followed by nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or arm C (nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W). The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were randomized across treatment arms. At 60-month minimum follow-up (62.6-month median follow-up), the ORR was 34% (n = 17), 27% (n = 13), and 29% (n = 14) in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The median DOR was 51.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.6 months-not estimable (NE)], 15.2 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE), and 21.7 months (95% CI 4.2 months-NE), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 22.2 months (34/50; 95% CI 9.4-54.8 months) in arm A, 12.5 months (38/49; 95% CI 7.6-16.4 months) in arm B, and 12.7 months (40/49; 95% CI 7.4-30.5 months) in arm C; 60-month OS rates were 29%, 19%, and 21%, respectively. In an exploratory analysis of OS by response (6-month landmark), the median OS was meaningfully longer for responders versus nonresponders for all arms. No new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. There were no new discontinuations due to immune-mediated adverse events since the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the primary analysis, the arm A regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful responses and long-term survival benefit, with no new safety signals in patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib treatment, further supporting its use as a second-line treatment in these patients.

Case report: Strong GAD antibody positivity and type 1 diabetes-HLA-susceptible haplotype-DRB1*04:05-DQB1*04:01 in a Japanese patient with immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced type 1 diabetes.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used in cancer treatment; however, they can lead to immune-related adverse events, including immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced type 1 diabetes mellitus (ICI-T1DM). While fulminant T1DM is common in East Asia, ICI-T1DM has predominantly been reported in Western countries. In this report, we present the case of a 66-year-old Japanese man with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing dialysis for diabetic nephropathy. The patient was diagnosed with left upper lobe lung cancer, and treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab was initiated. After 48 days, the patient experienced impaired consciousness and difficulty moving. His blood glucose levels were 815 mg/dL, and metabolic acidosis was detected, leading to a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis. The patient was subsequently treated with continuous intravenous insulin. However, his C-peptide levels rapidly depleted, and new-onset ICI-T1DM was diagnosed. Although most Japanese patients with ICI-T1DM test negative for glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibodies, this case exhibited a strong positivity. Thus, we reviewed the literature on 15 similar Japanese cases, revealing a mean HbA1c level at onset of 8.7% and a mean time from ICI administration to onset of 9.7 weeks, which was shorter than that in GAD-negative cases. Moreover, human leukocyte antigen typing revealed five cases of DRB1*04:05-DQB1*04:01, including the present case, and one case of DRB1*09:01-DQB1*03:03, both of which were susceptible to T1DM haplotypes. These findings suggest that GAD antibody positivity may be associated with acute onset and disease progression in some cases of Japanese patients with ICI-T1DM. Given that the prediction of new-onset ICI-T1DM is challenging, monitoring GAD antibody levels might be useful. However, further studies with large sample sizes and validation across different racial and ethnic populations are warranted.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi. CONCLUSIONS: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

Distinct autoantibody profiles across checkpoint inhibitor types and toxicities.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in combination. To understand the effects of different ICI categories, we characterized changes in circulating autoantibodies in patients enrolled in the E4412 trial (NCT01896999) of brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus ipilimumab, BV plus nivolumab, or BV plus ipilimumab-nivolumab for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) autoantibody levels were compared to pre-treatment baseline. Across 112 autoantibodies tested, we generally observed increases in ipilimumab-containing regimens, with decreases noted in the nivolumab arm. Among 15 autoantibodies with significant changes at C2D1, all nivolumab cases exhibited decreases, with more than 90% of ipilimumab-exposed cases showing increases. Autoantibody profiles also showed differences according to immune-related adverse event (irAE) type, with rash generally featuring increases and liver toxicity demonstrating decreases. We conclude that dynamic autoantibody profiles may differ according to ICI category and irAE type. These findings may have relevance to clinical monitoring and irAE treatment.

Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial: early discontinuation of nivolumab upon achieving a complete or partial response in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab - study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma presenting with poor prognostic factors are usually treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab. This combination therapy is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAEs) in about 60% of patients. In current clinical practice, patients are usually treated with ICIs for up to two years or until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable AEs. The incidence of irAEs gradually increases with duration of treatment. While durable tumour responses have been observed after early discontinuation of treatment, no consensus has been reached on optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of ICIs is safe in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy. METHODS: The Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 80 patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy of ipilimumab-nivolumab and have a complete or partial response (CR/PR) according to RECIST v1.1 will be included to early discontinue maintenance therapy with anti-PD-1. The primary endpoint is the rate of ongoing response at 12 months after start of ICI. Secondary endpoints include ongoing response at 24 months, disease control at different time points, melanoma specific and overall survival, the incidence of irAEs and health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: From a medical, healthcare and economic perspective, overtreatment should be prevented and shorter treatment duration of ICIs is preferred. If early discontinuation of ICIs is safe for patients who are treated with the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the treatment duration of nivolumab could be shortened in patients with a favourable tumour response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05652673, registration date: 08-12-2022.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced hypophysitis with transient ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism.

A woman in her 70s with metastatic melanoma presenting with refractory hypokalaemia on combined immune checkpoint inhibitors, nivolumab-ipilimumab, was diagnosed with adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-dependent hypercortisolism 11 weeks following the initiation of her immunotherapy. Investigations also demonstrated central hypothyroidism and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. She underwent imaging studies of her abdomen and brain which revealed normal adrenal glands and pituitary, respectively. She was started on levothyroxine replacement and had close pituitary function monitoring. Two weeks later, her cortisol and ACTH levels started to trend down. She finally developed secondary adrenal insufficiency and was started on hydrocortisone replacement 4 weeks thereafter.This report highlights a case of immunotherapy-related hypophysitis with well-documented transient central hypercortisolism followed, within weeks, by profound secondary adrenal insufficiency. Healthcare professionals should remain vigilant in monitoring laboratory progression in these patients. Early recognition of the phase of hypercortisolism and its likely rapid transformation into secondary adrenal insufficiency can facilitate timely hormonal replacement and prevent complications.

Comparison of Cabozantinib and Axitinib as Second-line Therapy After Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Real-world Data.

BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0-16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0-13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

Treatment-free survival outcomes from the phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

BACKGROUND: As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured. RESULTS: At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population.

Successful treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis.

We report a 64-year-old patient with melanoma receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab therapy who presented with a periaortic soft tissue mass around the abdominal aorta on restaging fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings resulted in a diagnosis of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis. Periaortitis is a rare disease presenting with fibro-inflammatory tissue around the aorta and may lead to serious complications. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were discontinued, and the patient was treated with glucocorticoids, leading to a complete resolution of the periaortitis. To our knowledge, this is only the third reported case of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Adverse events of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab plus cabozantinib: a real-world pharmacovigilance study.

BACKGROUND: No head-to-head clinical trials have compared the differences in adverse events (AEs) between nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). AIM: We analysed the two largest real-world databases, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's VigiBase, to elucidate the differences in AEs between NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO. METHOD: In total, 40,376 and 38,022 records were extracted from FAERS and VigiBase, and 193 AEs were analysed. The reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using a disproportionality analysis (NIVO-CABO/NIVO-IPI). RESULTS: The reported numbers of immune-related AEs, including myocarditis, colitis, and hepatitis, were significantly higher with NIVO-IPI (ROR = 0.18 for FAERS and 0.13 for VigiBase). Contrarily, the reported numbers of other AEs, including gastrointestinal disorders (ROR = 2.68 and 2.92) and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (ROR = 2.94 and 3.55), considered to be potentiated by the combination of NIVO and CABO, were higher with NIVO-CABO. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to the selection and clinical management of NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO, which minimizes the risk of AEs for individual patients with mRCC by considering distinctive differences in the AE profiles.

Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy induced inflammatory arthritis secondary to Nivolumab and Ipilimumab: a pediatric first.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have expanded the arsenal of cancer therapeutics over the last decade but are associated with a spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including inflammatory arthritis. While these complications are increasingly recognized in the adult population, no cases of inflammatory arthritis irAEs have been reported in the pediatric literature. CASE PRESENTATION: A 14-year-old female with metastatic epithelioid mesothelioma was referred to the pediatric rheumatology clinic after developing progressive inflammatory joint pain in her bilateral shoulders, hips, and small joints of hands following the second cycle of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. Initial examinations showed bilateral shoulder joint line tenderness, positive FABERs test bilaterally, tenderness over bilateral greater trochanters, and bilateral second PIP effusions. Her serological profile was notable for positive HLA-B27, positive anti-CCP, negative Rheumatoid Factor, and negative ANA. PET-CT scan performed for disease response following immunotherapy showed symmetric increased metabolic activity primarily involving the supraspinatus, gluteus medius and minimus, and semimembranosus tendon insertions. Her presentation was consistent with a grade 1 irAE that worsened to a grade 2 irAE despite NSAID therapy, prompting a short course of oral prednisolone. She achieved clinical remission of her mesothelioma following six cycles of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab and her inflammatory arthritis was controlled on Celebrex monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first pediatric case of ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis and enthesitis. This case highlights the importance of increasing awareness of diagnosis and management of irAEs in children.

Beyond T cell toxicity - Intrathecal chemokine CXCL13 indicating B cell involvement in immune-related adverse events following checkpoint inhibition: A two-case series and literature review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to raise awareness of a role of B cells in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated neurological immune-related adverse events (nirAE). METHODS: A systematic literature review was made, with case observations of a melanoma and a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient who developed ICI-associated nirAE with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings indicating B cell involvement. RESULTS: Two patients receiving ipilimumab/nivolumab for melanoma and chemotherapy/pembrolizumab for NSCLC developed nirAE in the form of myocarditis/myositis/myasthenia gravis overlap syndrome (triple M) and cerebellitis plus longitudinal transverse myelitis (c-LETM), respectively. Intrathecal inflammation with chemokine C-X-C motif ligand (CXCL13) elevation was present in both patients; the triple M case had acetylcholine receptor antibodies, antititin reactivity, altered CD4/CD8 T cell ratio in blood, and depressed programmed death-1 (PD-1) expression on CSF T cells; the c-LETM case showed intrathecal antibody production and plasma cells. Both patients insufficiently responded to first-line treatment. The NSCLC case improved upon administration of B cell-depleting therapy with rituximab, whereas the melanoma patient died before escalation therapy was initiated. Literature research revealed one additional ICI-associated LETM case with intrathecal CXCL13 elevation, three cases with ICI-associated aquaporin-4 antibody neuromyelitis spectrum disorder, and evidence of B cell-mediated toxicity based on antibody-mediated immune pathologies in ICI-associated immune-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The case observations highlight the plethora of uncertainties in diagnosis and treatment of ICI-associated nirAE, exemplify the heterogeneity of immune mechanisms involved, and suggest a role of B cells, which may be underdiagnosed. Intrathecal CXCL13 may serve as a biomarker of B cell involvement in nirAE, supported by intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis, presence of plasma cells, and/or recruitment of cognate immune cells.

UV1 telomerase vaccine with ipilimumab and nivolumab as second line treatment for pleural mesothelioma - A phase II randomised trial.

PURPOSE: The NIPU-trial investigates the effect of adding the telomerase vaccine UV1 to treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab for patients with pleural mesothelioma (PM). METHODS: In this phase 2 open-label trial, patients with PM progressing after first-line chemotherapy were randomised to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab alone (arm B) or combined with UV1 (arm A). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by BICR. It was estimated that 69 PFS events were needed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 with 80% power and a one-sided alpha level of 0.10. RESULTS: 118 patients were randomised. The median PFS determined by blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.2 months (95%CI 2.9-9.8) in arm A and 4.7 months (95%CI 3.9-7.0) in arm B (HR 1.01, 80%CI 0.75-1.36 P = 0.979), after a median follow-up of 12.5 months (95%CI 9.7-15.6). The investigator-determined median PFS was 4.3 months (95%CI 3.0-6.8) in arm A and 2.9 months (95%CI 2.4-5.5) in arm B (HR 0.60, 80%CI 0.45-0.81 P = 0.025). Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by BICR was 31% in arm A and 16% in arm B (odds ratio 2.44 80%CI 1.35-4.49 P = 0.056). After a median follow-up time of 17.3 months (95%CI 15.8-22.9), the OS was 15.4 months (95%CI 11.1-22.6) in arm A and 11.1 months (95%CI 8.8-18.1) in arm B, (HR 0.73, 80%CI 0.53-1.0, P = 0.197). CONCLUSION: The primary endpoint was not met. Predefined analyses of response rates are in favour of adding the vaccine.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating. OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma. RESULTS: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior. CONCLUSIONS: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

The association of hypophysitis with immune checkpoint inhibitors use: Gaining insight through the FDA pharmacovigilance database.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) marked a revolutionary change in cancer treatment and opened new avenues for cancer therapy, but ICI can also trigger immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Here, we investigated the publicly available US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to gain insight into the possible association between immune checkpoint inhibitors and hypophysitis. Data on adverse events (AEs) due to hypophysitisfor nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab were collected from the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System from the first quarter of 2004 to the second quarter of 2021, and the signals for hypophysitis associated with the four drugs were examined using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) method. The number of reported hypophysitis events ≥ 3 and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ROR > 1 were considered positive for hypophysitis signals. A total of 1252 AE reports of hypophysitis associated with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab were collected, including 419, 149, 643, and 41 cases, respectively. The RORs of hypophysitis were 289.58 (95% CI 258.49-324.40), 171.74 (95% CI 144.91-203.54), 2248.57 (95% CI 2025.31-2496.45), and 97.29 (95% CI 71.28-132.79), respectively. All four drugs were statistically correlated with the target AE, with the correlation being, in descending order, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab have all been associated with hypophysitis, which can negatively impact quality of life, and early recognition and management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related hypophysitis is critical.

Phase 1b study of intraperitoneal ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has shown poor response rates in recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Intraperitoneal (i.p.) ICB may result in enhanced T cell activation and anti-tumor immunity. METHODS: In this phase 1b study, registered at Clinical. TRIALS: gov (NCT03508570), initial cohorts received i.p. nivolumab monotherapy, and subsequent cohorts received combination i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks and i.p. ipilimumab every 6 weeks, guided by a Bayesian design. The primary objective was determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination. Secondary outcomes included toxicity, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). FINDINGS: The trial enrolled 23 patients: 18 with ovarian cancer, 2 with uterine cancer, and 3 with cervical cancer. Study evaluable patients (n = 16) received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range: 1-8). Partial response was observed in 2 patients (12.5%; 1 ovarian, 1 uterine), and complete response was observed in 1 patient (6.3%) with cervical cancer, for an ORR of 18.8% (95% confidence interval: 4.0%-45.6%). The median duration of response was 14.8 months (range: 4.1-20.8), with one complete response ongoing. Median PFS and OS were 2.7 months and not reached, respectively. Grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events occurred in 2 (8.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: i.p. administration of dual ICB is safe and demonstrated durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy. The RP2D is 3 mg/kg i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks plus 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 6 weeks. FUNDING: This work was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (CA209-9C7), an MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (CA016672), the Ovarian Cancer Moon Shots Program, the Emerson Collective Fund, and a T32 training grant (CA101642).

Outcome of adjuvant immunotherapy in a real-world nation-wide cohort of patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated promising outcomes for adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected melanoma. Real-life data provide valuable insights to support patient guidance and treatment decisions. METHODS: Observational population-based study examining a national cohort of patients with resected stage III-IV melanoma referred for adjuvant therapy. Data were extracted from the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED). RESULTS: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 785 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1. The majority had stage III resected melanoma (87%), normal LDH levels (80%), and performance score 0 (87%). Patients were followed for a median of 25.6 months (95%CI 24-28). The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were not reached. The RFS was 78% (95%CI 75-81), 66% (63-70), and 59% (55-63); MSS was 97% (95-98), 93% (91-95), and 87% (84-90) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year; respectively. Less than half (42%) of the patients finalized planned therapy, 32% discontinued due to toxicity, and 19% due to melanoma recurrence. Patients discontinuing adjuvant treatment prematurely, without recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing therapy. In a multivariable analysis, ipilimumab plus nivolumab did not improve outcomes compared to ipilimumab monotherapy as a first-line metastatic treatment after adjuvant anti-PD-1. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes in real-world patients with melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 align with results from the randomized controlled trials. Patients discontinuing therapy prematurely, for other reasons than recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing planned treatment. First-line metastatic treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab post-adjuvant anti-PD-1 did not show improved outcomes compared to ipilimumab/anti-PD-1 monotherapy.